United States v. ONE 1981 DATSUN 280ZX

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that looking to \who would actually suffer from the loss of the vehicle . . . provides an excellent focus for determining ownership in the forfeiture context\
• claimant did not establish standing, despite the fact of showing title, because he did not pay for it and had not exercised dominion and control over it
• claimant did not have standing to contest forfeiture of vehicle because despite fact that he had title to it, he had not paid for it and had not exercised dominion and control over it
• negotiating drug deal in automobile provides sufficient nexus
• Forfeiture is not limited to those situations in which a sale is consummated or prosecution brought, nor need drugs be found in vehicle; it is sufficient if car is used to \facilitate\ purchase, sale or transportation of controlled substance or if it is \intended\ to be so used
• both cases interpreted 21 U.S.C. § 881[a][4]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).